To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy Patient Selection and Short-term Outcome of 47,101 Primary Operations From the Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch National Quality Registries
Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, Netherlands; .
Groene Hart Hospital, Department of Surgery, Gouda, Netherlands; Dutch Obesity Clinic, The Hague, Netherlands.
Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry, Bergen, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Oslo, Norway.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Annals of Surgery, ISSN 0003-4932, E-ISSN 1528-1140, Vol. 272, no 2, p. 326-333Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the use and short-term outcome of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands.

Background: Although bariatric surgery is performed in high volumes worldwide, no consensus exists regarding the choice of bariatric procedure for specific groups of patients.

Methods: Data from 3 national registries for bariatric surgery were used. Patient selection, perioperative data (severe complications, mortality, and rate of readmissions within 30 days), and 1-year results (follow-up rate and weight loss) were studied.

Results: A total of 47,101 primary operations were registered, 33,029 (70.1%) RYGB and 14,072 (29.9%) SG. Patients receiving RYGB met international guidelines for having bariatric surgery more often than those receiving SG (91.9% vs 83,0%, P< 0.001). The 2 procedures did not differ in the rate of severe complications (2.6% vs 2.4%, P= 0.382), nor 30-day mortality (0.04% vs 0.03%, P= 0.821). Readmission rates were higher after RYGB (4.3% vs 3.4%, P< 0.001). One-year post surgery, less RYGB-patients were lost-to follow-up (12.1% vs 16.5%, P< 0.001) and RYGB resulted in a higher rate of patients with total weight loss of more than 20% (95.8% vs 84.6%, P< 0.001). While the weight-loss after RYGB was similar between hospitals, there was a great variation in weight loss after SG.

Conclusion: This study reflects the pragmatic use and short-term outcome of RYGB and SG in 3 countries in North-Western Europe. Both procedures were safe, with RYGB having higher weight loss and follow-up rates at the cost of a slightly higher 30-day readmission rate.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2020. Vol. 272, no 2, p. 326-333
Keywords [en]
%TWL, bariatric, comparison, complications, DATO, DICA, Dutch, gastrectomy, gastric bypass, LTFU, Netherlands, Norway, Norwegian, outcome, outcomes, quality, readmission, Roux-en-Y, RYGB, SG, sleeve, SOReg, surgery, Sweden, Swedish, total weight loss, TWL
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-85549DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003279ISI: 000562697800066Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85088156162OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-85549DiVA, id: diva2:1466275
Available from: 2020-09-11 Created: 2020-09-11 Last updated: 2020-12-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Ottosson, Johan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ottosson, Johan
By organisation
School of Medical SciencesÖrebro University Hospital
In the same journal
Annals of Surgery
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 54 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf